Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Obama Aiming at Israel's Nuclear Weapons

Allen Z. Hertz was senior adviser in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history and languages at McGill University (B.A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.). This article was first published in the Times of Israel on February 19, 2014.


Mideast "linkage" is the notion that more distant issues like the Syrian civil war and/or Iran's race to nuclear weapons could in some significant sense be related to important questions touching Israel, such as the current negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

With respect to linkage, recently published is Aaron David Miller's Wilson Center essay entitled: "It's Iran, Stupid: The real, unspoken reason America won't get involved in Syria." Miller's piece turns on insights offered by President Obama in a valuable January 27, 2014 New Yorker article by David Remnick. But, President Obama there refers, not to linkage between matters involving just Iran and Syria, but rather to a connection among his top three Mideast issues, namely some problems relating to Israel, Syria, and Iran:
Obama told me that in all three of his main initiatives in the region — with Iran, with Israel and the Palestinians, with Syria — the odds of completing final treaties are less than fifty-fifty. “On the other hand,” he said, “in all three circumstances we may be able to push the boulder partway up the hill and maybe stabilize it so it doesn’t roll back on us. And all three are connected."
Astonishing is President Obama's assessment that there's less than a 50% chance of success for the three sets of now separate negotiations about Iran, Israel and Syria respectively. Equally striking is his assertion that these three persistent problems are somehow interwoven.

Really? Are they substantially linked? If so, how are they connected? Or is it that President Obama is significantly telling us that he will take steps to connect them? The likely link could be that, in each of these three instances, President Obama might soon try to make Israel foot the bill.

This is likely what President Obama is now thinking in terms of "next steps" after the predicted failure of the three sets of separate negotiations. And, perhaps there might be a fair chance of "success" for his likely strategy of addressing the three issues as one problem in a single negotiation. This might work, principally because Russia, China and Iran could perhaps perceive that his plan might enhance their own interests -- including by weakening the USA, which President Obama peculiarly wants out of the Mideast.

With respect to his expectation that the current negotiation with Iran would likely fail, President Obama is perhaps planning for an early diplomatic crisis. He might want this to coincide with the expected collapse of the bilateral peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Specifically, President Obama seems to want the three issues of Iran, Israel and Syria to align in the short term -- and in any event, before newly elected USA Senators and Representatives take their seats in mid-January 2015, after which Congress is likely to be more determined to block him.

With references to "international peace" and also some empty threats to use force against Iran, President Obama would perhaps first posture dramatically, but then move quickly to exploit the perceived crisis in order to get Iran to solemnly agree to go no further than "threshold nuclear State," just like Japan.

For this (perhaps worthless) commitment from Iran, he might try to pay in gold coin, i.e. by denuclearizing Israel's defense. Namely, President Obama is perhaps planning to trade off Israel's nuclear weapons for a piece of paper promising that Iran would stop short of actually building a nuclear bomb. This would dovetail with the President's strong emphasis on gradually creating "a world without nuclear weapons" and the relevant regional reference in his June 2009 Cairo speech.

Shafting Israel in the cause of "international peace"? Sounds like something that would be wildly popular in the Muslim World and among left-liberals in the USA and globally. Though Gallup continues to show that Israel is the Mideast country that Americans view most favorably (72%), President Obama's gambit would have that angle of peace-loving plausibility likely to appeal to some USA independents. Such a "peace" policy would also help him continue his stubborn efforts to divide Jewish Americans from Jews in Israel. And, it might even win him a second Nobel Prize.

In this same diplomatic constellation, President Obama might try to compel Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights to buy Iran's consent to some sort of a peaceful outcome in Syria. If so, the measure would likely be proposed by the USA and agreed by the other countries currently negotiating with Iran. These are collectively called the P5+1, i.e. the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.

Part of this ambitious package would perhaps also be creation of a new Palestinian State in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. But, we should also recall that President Obama has several times specifically promised a "contiguous" Palestine. Thus, there may be an attempt to equip the new Arab country with a land bridge linking Gaza with the West Bank; or Israel might even lose all the Negev. If so, this radical truncation would be imposed to "preserve the peace of the world," via agreement of Iran and the P5+1.

Once the fate of the Jewish State is to be decided entirely by foreigners, who knows what would happen and where it would end? For example, with an eye to the safety of the citizens of Tel Aviv, remember that references to “international peace and security” were also used to justify NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999. That strange military operation was designed to force the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia) to withdraw from Kosovo. Perhaps the prospect of applying similar military pressure on Israel was exactly what motivated President Obama to choose, as Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel who was widely known as cold to the Jewish State.

Despite the camouflage, President Obama really is making every effort to do to Israel in 2014, what was done to Czechoslovakia in 1938. This message was already a subtle subtext in his June 2009 Cairo speech. From his first day in office, President Obama was tenaciously targeting Israel not Iran. In essence, President Obama always intended to spin the Iran crisis into a device for rendering Israel virtually defenseless -- just as in 1938 Czechoslovakia was strategically crippled by the cession of the Sudetenland.

If so, there is certainly cynical dissimulation in President Obama's frequent trumpeting of both Israel's "right to exist" and a promise to always back the "security" of the Jewish State. Such sly equivocation would be fully consistent with the existence of nothing more than a truncated Israel, the security of which then would really have to depend mostly on the USA.

Is there a better explanation for President Obama's stunning assessment that the three separate negotiations are likely to fail and for his curious claim of interconnection of the substantive matters touching Syria, Iran and Israel? If so, I would be relieved to know it. But if not, this word to the wise should suffice.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Commentary Magazine Stifles Free Comment

Barack Obama as "Muslim Socialist"

Allen Z. Hertz was senior adviser in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history at McGill University (B.A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.).

Preface

Barack Obama's links to Islam are more fully discussed in a July 2013 posting entitled "Obama's Muslim Past Spells Appeasement of Iran." Many would prefer to avoid this controversial topic. But forthright talk about Barack Obama's ties to Islam and the Muslim world is demanded by intellectual honesty and professional integrity. Such candor is also required to safeguard vital national interests. Matters touching Islam and the Muslim world now affect the security of many countries -- including Canada, the USA, and Israel. It is also imperative to alert the Jewish People, which has already been victimized by Muslims for close to 1,400 years. Willy-nilly, an understanding of this President's Mideast policies is not possible without considering his extraordinary attitudes to Muslims and the Muslim world.

Introduction

At the beginning of November 2013, Commentary Magazine suddenly shut down its "Intense Debate" platform for offering readers a digital opportunity to quickly comment on the various blog posts on the publication's website. However, even before abruptly shutting the door to such rapid feedback from readers, Commentary Magazine was arbitrarily blocking the posting of some comments by readers. This censorship was an issue that readers had already started raising in talkbacks to the Commentary Magazine website.

In late October 2013, Commentary Magazine blocked the following comment which I had offered with respect to a Max Boot article criticizing the current round of defense-spending cuts in the USA.

Text blocked by Commentary Magazine

Max Boot's interesting essay omits from the current defense equation, the sitting President. On April 28, 2013, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Barack Obama significantly quipped: "I am not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be." Perhaps no longer so young, but maybe still something of the "Muslim socialist," as he himself put it.

Domestically, the "socialist" side is confirmed by a penchant for astonishingly big government and massive expansion of entitlement programs of near universal scope. This is tantamount to the systemic redistribution of wealth via relentless tax and spend. This President sometimes uses "guns or butter" lingo to justify deep defense-spending cuts. He says that USA tax dollars must instead go to existing and new social programs. His aim is to buy the electorate for a new vision of the country.

In terms of foreign policy, the "socialist" side underlines an extraordinary commitment to rapidly liquidate the post-WW2 pax Americana in favor of a new world disorder, in which the USA will play a more modest role. This includes acting through multilateral agencies like the United Nations and withdrawing from foreign entanglements. For example, Mideast allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel are to be abandoned, so that the region can be turned over to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Muslim optic comes into play in terms of the President's firm understanding that there is a socio-political phenomenon called the Muslim world. This contrasts with Western Civilization. Barack Obama is the first USA President to frequently frame his discourse in terms of Muslims and the Muslim world, in relation to which he clearly believes that apologies are owed by the USA, as expressed in his June 2009 Cairo speech. This President curiously thinks that the Muslim world should bulk larger in the affairs of the planet, which by definition means that the USA's role must be diminished. This diminution Obama sees as intrinsically positive.

A strong believer in distributive justice, Obama deplores the kind of economic and military-security advantages that Americans have for so long enjoyed. He is troubled that so many in the Muslim world suffer from insecurity and violence. So, this President wants to see more equality as between the lives of Americans and those in the Muslim world. His sensibility is offended that Americans (or Israelis) might be too happy and too secure. Accordingly, he favors deep defense cuts that would help align the situation of Americans more closely with the insecurity experienced by Muslims.

How can this be possible? The answer is that, unlike his predecessors, Barack Obama does not worship in the temple of USA national security. To the contrary, as a "Muslim socialist," he abhors the geopolitical status quo, which from youth he has always seen as intolerable. Accordingly, Obama frequently invites far-reaching change, without that fear of disorder which so terrified previous Presidents. By contrast, Barack Obama has always believed that chaos can be creative of new political and social relationships.

Earlier Presidents were leaders of "the free world." Namely, they were champions of Western civilization. By contrast, this President at best is impartial as among the various civilizations; and, at worst, he particularly favors the claims of the Muslim world, notably including the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thus, traditional USA prudence does not play in his foreign and defense policy.

The essential truth is that he will subject the USA to real risks to ensure realization of a distinctive worldview that was shaped during his childhood in Indonesia, where he went (1967-1971) to be reunited with his Muslim stepfather. Indonesia is a 90% Muslim country, to which Obama subsequently returned on at least five occasions during the 1970's and 1980's.

President Obama's particular worldview was also partly derived from his anthropologist mother, Stanley Anne Dunham. She married two Muslims; and spent most of her professional career in Indonesia, where she encouraged her son to adopt local culture. She was sharply critical of her fellow Americans, but deeply committed to both Indonesia and its people.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Obama's Muslim Past Spells Appeasement of Iran

"Young Muslim socialist that I used to be."


Allen Z. Hertz was senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history at McGill University (B.A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M.A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.). A version of this article was also published in the Times of Israel, February 26, 2014.

Okay to ask about Obama's religion?

June 4, 2009 in Cairo was one of several occasions when Barack Obama reminded us: "I'm a Christian." President Obama there chose to again broach the sensitive matter of his personal religious belief, which is a topic that he has also addressed in two books and on the campaign trail. This makes sense because consistent public-opinion polling shows that most Americans want a political leader to have religious conviction, and are interested in learning something about their leader's religious faith. Moreover, such polling about the role of religion in USA public life suggests that most Americans regard President Obama's current religion and religious history to be matters of legitimate public interest, though an articulate minority would strongly disagree.

The "birthers" helped Obama

Including careful research by reputable biographers, a range of evidence now shows that Barack Obama was indeed born in Honolulu, Hawaii, in August 1961. The birthers' far-fetched claims that he was born in Kenya helped Barack Obama discredit opponents as crackpots.

The birthers' egregious failure to prove false allegations about a Kenyan birthplace has gone a long way toward tarring all critical inquiry into Barack Obama's past. They have also harmed by distracting attention from Barack Obama's significant connection to Indonesia and the related issue of his worldview from childhood.

This importantly includes long-standing ties to Islam, which is not only a religion, but also a civilization -- with distinct ways of interpreting the world historically, politically and militarily. For example, it is probably fair to say that most Muslims see Iran’s current race to develop nuclear weapons as no greater a threat to world peace than the nuclear weapons already possessed by the USA, India, and Israel.

Focus on Indonesia not Kenya!

In 1967 child Obama moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, to be reunited with his Muslim step-father Lolo Soetoro, who was significantly the only father Obama knew daily during early childhood. Obama's particular worldview was also derived from his anthropologist mother, Stanley Anne Dunham. She married two Muslims; and spent almost all of her professional career in Indonesia, where she encouraged her son to adopt local culture. She was sharply critical of her fellow Americans, but deeply committed to both Indonesia and its people.

Indonesia is almost 90% Muslim -- now the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. While living there, child Obama was perceived to be Muslim and he practiced Islam. This simple statement about Islamic practice should not be exaggerated into the bogus claim that child Obama studied in a fundamentalist medrese. Nor should it be "read down" to accommodate the politically convenient falsehood that Obama had a secular childhood. As we shall see, the "secular" claim is inconsistent with some of the bare facts about Obama's life in 1960's Indonesia, which is not to be confused with the USA either then or today.

Early ambition to be a President

From childhood, Barack Obama's enduring goal was to lead a country, whether the USA or much earlier Indonesia, to which he long retained ties. Thus, in eventually opting for the USA, Obama likely sought political advantage in his significantly late start of Christian religious practice. This probably occurred around age thirty, but in any event no later than his October 1992 marriage to Michelle Robinson. For about fifteen years thereafter, he attended services at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, where his long-time pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright frequently used the pulpit for anti-USA rants.

"Paris is worth a mass."
As an adult Henry of Navarre (1553-1610) converted to
Roman Catholicism to become King of France.


Self-serving denials

During the 2007-2008 Democratic nomination campaign, candidate Obama made the improbable claim that he had been unaware of Wright's bitter anti-USA pronouncements. But, this self-serving denial directly contradicts what had previously been written about Wright in Obama's 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father.

Similarly, both Barack Obama and his campaign staff specifically denied that he had ever practiced Islam. For example, in Pleasantville, Iowa, on December 22, 2007, candidate Obama explained:
My father was from Kenya, and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn't practice Islam. Truth is he wasn't very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas. I've always been a Christian.... The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country. But I've never practiced Islam.
But we shall see that this unequivocal denial does not square with the salient facts. Thus, President Obama should be encouraged to speak about his early religious experience in a way that would be more intelligible to ordinary Americans who from childhood are generally people of faith.

Does childhood matter?

During the Cairo speech, President Obama specified: "My father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk."

Psychologists tell us that childhood experience is exceptionally significant. And, the Jesuits believed: "Give me the child until the age of seven and I will give you the man.” Because President Obama is a pivotal public figure who himself raises the matter of his Muslim roots, we are fully entitled to ask about his childhood to help better understand the foundations of his current ideology and predict his policy directions -- for example, with respect to Israel and the various Muslim countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Did child Obama practice Islam?

Theologically, Islam regards all children to be born Muslim and to remain such until adults teach them otherwise. On the balance of probabilities, child Obama was Muslim also because:
  • his paternal grandfather in Kenya was Muslim;
  • his Kenyan birth-father (though ideologically Marxist) always used his two Muslim names; and Dreams From My Father tells us that, when he died, his family wanted him buried with Muslim rites;
  • he was given his birth-father's two Muslim names, "Barack" and "Hussein";
  • his Indonesian step-father was also Muslim;
  • his Indonesian classmates and playmates recall that he attended Muslim religious services both at school and in mosques, when they believed him to be Muslim;
  • he was explicitly registered as Muslim at two elementary schools in Indonesia;
  • he then studied the Koran, as indicated in Dreams From My Father;
  • an Indonesian teacher recalls that child Obama was also learning Arabic recitation of the Koran, a part of which adult Obama could still recite by memory, as demonstrated during his 2007 interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof;
  • reflecting on her childhood with her older brother, Obama's half-sister Maya Soetoro in 2007 told the New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim"; and
  • speaking to ABC commentator George Stephanopolous in September 2008, candidate Obama inadvertently referred to "my Muslim faith" -- a slip of the tongue that could never have passed the lips of a lifelong Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Jew.

From Jakarta's Fransiskus Assisi School, a registration (Jan.1, 1968)
 for "Barry Soetoro," aka Barack Hussein Obama.
Indicated are "Honolulu" as "birthplace"; "Islam" as "religion";
and "Indonesia" as "country of citizenship."
 (AP, Jan. 24, 2007).

Young Muslim socialist?

The high probability that Barack Obama practiced Islam as a child in Indonesia does not necessarily mean that his close connections with Islam and Muslims abruptly ended in 1971, when he moved back to Hawaii.

Barack Obama himself specifically pointed to this possibility on April 28, 2013, at the annual White House correspondents' dinner, which is traditionally an occasion for presidential humor. There, as a subtle political ploy, he spoke truth in jest, in saying: "I'm not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be."

This quip recalls information in Dreams From My Father which, inter alia, details his many continuing ties to Muslims, e.g., close friends and roommates. Thus, Dreams From My Father and some other statements by Barack Obama, and by his family and friends, raise the possibility that he did indeed retain something of a Muslim self-identification beyond his first decade.



Holding hands: Barack Hussein Obama and Mohammed Hasan Chandoo
 were roommates in Pasadena (1980-1981),
when they attended Occidental College, Los Angeles.

Barack Obama's retention of something of a Muslim self-identification is an hypothesis supported by recent testimony from his former New York lover, Genevieve Cook who is the daughter of a prominent Australian diplomat. Referring to her diary for the years 1983-1985, she recalls that, after his graduation (1983) from Columbia University, Barack Obama was still socializing mostly with Muslims from Pakistan: "Me and the Paki mob and that was it pretty much."

Relevant to this track record of strong ties to Muslims was Barack Obama's 1981 visit to Muslim Pakistan, a trip which he discussed during the 2008 presidential campaign. Barack Obama's three-week stay in Pakistan was immediately preceded by a visit to Indonesia, where he had lived as a child until 1971. Thereafter, Obama returned to Indonesia on no fewer than five occasions, at various times in the 1970's and 1980's.


Because Michelle Robinson is to our right, this photograph shows
Barack Hussein Obama, certainly no younger than age 28,
wearing the white topi or kofia hat that is traditionally
associated with Islam in East Africa, Southeast Asia and China.

With a master's and doctor's degree in divinity, Jeremiah Wright is also a prominent USA theologian. From this expert perspective, he recently specified that, when he first met Barack Obama in 1987, he was immediately impressed by how much Obama then knew about Islam, by contrast with Obama's slender knowledge about Jesus. Asked if he had converted Obama from Islam to Christianity, Wright replied:
That's hard to tell. I think that I convinced him it was okay for him to make a choice in terms of who he believes Jesus is. And I told him that it was really okay and not a put down of the Muslim part of his family or his Muslim friends.

As a new law student at Harvard University in late 1988, Barack Obama was told by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Senior: "If you want to succeed in politics in this country, you had better get yourself a Christian religion." What did Jesse Jackson then know about Obama's religious background? And why -- twenty years later (October 2008) -- did Jackson significantly predict that an Obama victory in the presidential election would certainly mean a reversal in USA policy toward Israel?


19th-century UK Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881).
His parents always remained Jews, but they had their 12-year-old son convert to

Anglicanism, specifically for social advantage.

Like Nixon to China?

Though earlier Presidents spoke about the Mideast or the Arab world, Barack Obama was significantly the first to frequently refer to "Muslims around the world" and the "Muslim world." Both historically and currently, this Muslim world is as much a political as a religious concept.

Certainly, President Obama's 2009 journey to Cairo for "a new beginning" with Muslims around the world cannot be compared with President Richard Nixon's 1972 trip to Beijing to begin direct dialogue with the communist leaders of China. As a long-time "Cold Warrior" with sterling anti-communist credentials, Nixon was hard to challenge on his motives for talking with Chairman Mao.

By contrast, ought there not to be some degree of skepticism about the motives of a President with publicly avowed Muslim roots, reaching out to the Muslim world, notably including appeasement of the Islamic Republic of Iran?



February 1972 President Nixon talks with China's Premier Chou En Lai.
Nobody was ever able to credibly accuse Nixon of being "soft on Communism."

By contrast, many say President Obama is "soft on Islam."



Conflicting loyalties?

With respect to President Obama, the potential political problem falls under the familiar headings of bias and conflict of loyalties. Acute danger arises because:
  • USA stakes are the very highest with respect to the race to nuclear weapons of the Islamic Republic of Iran;
  • Islam is not just a religion, but also a political program; and
  • President Obama really does make his own Mideast policy solo like a 21st-century Napoleon III.
"Emperor of the French," Napoleon III (1808-1873).
His incompetent, ideology-driven foreign policy ignored
vital national interests and led to France's humiliating defeat
and permanent loss of primacy in Europe. 

There is no responsible way to avoid the disturbing possibility that this President neglects vital USA interests, due to peculiar ideological preconceptions. Specifically, the risk is that he harbors sympathies and self-identifications that historically have been both outside the American mainstream and hostile to the Western world.

Killing Osama partly political theater!

Personally approving targets, this President puts special emphasis on drone strikes against Al-Qaeda and other selected terrorists. Whatever the tactical benefits, such drone strikes are no substitute for an effective foreign policy. To the contrary, they harm foreign policy by damaging relations with Pakistan and stirring strong anti-USA sentiment in other countries.

Killing Osama bin Laden and the continuing drone strikes are significantly also political theater -- a Rambo-style show partly aimed at deflecting attention from Barack Obama's own Muslim past toward a contrived narrative portraying him as a tough sheriff, riding posse on Islamists.

Drone strikes are also intended to distract from the philo-Muslim architecture of President Obama's peculiar Mideast policy. This appeases a dangerous enemy like the Islamic Republic of Iran, which daily gets closer to nuclear weapons. The Iranian ayatollahs also persistently project power via Iraq to Syria, and then onward to Lebanon. President Obama helped make this possible by rushing to withdraw USA forces from Iraq. He also abandons Afghanistan and betrays old friends like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.


A Jewish-American President?

Charges of bias and conflict of loyalties would inevitably be raised were there a Jewish-American President, perceived to favor Israel to the slightest extent. For example, consider the case of Al Gore's year 2000 vice-presidential running-mate, former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who practices Orthodox Judaism. Had Joe Lieberman become President, we can be dead certain that countless critics would have pointed to his Jewish descent and faith to challenge his Mideast policies, unless egregiously hostile to Israel.

Senator Joe Lieberman practices Orthodox Judaism.

But, still remaining are two essential differences: Firstly, Senator Lieberman was always completely open about both his Judaism and his affection for the Jewish State. Secondly, by contrast to any Muslim country, Israel is more closely linked to the USA and consistently admired by a solid majority of Americans.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Does Attack on Iran Mean Attack on South Korea?

Watch for Simultaneous Crises in the Far and Middle East! 

Allen Z. Hertz was senior advisor in the Privy Council Office serving Canada's Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. He formerly worked in Canada's Foreign Affairs Department and earlier taught history and law at universities in New York, Montreal, Toronto and Hong Kong. He studied European history at McGill University (B. A.) and then East European and Ottoman history at Columbia University (M. A., Ph.D.). He also has international law degrees from Cambridge University (LL.B.) and the University of Toronto (LL.M.). An earlier version of this article was published on April 14, 2013, in American Thinker.

Matching threats to Iran and South Korea? 

There is perhaps a key message in the current Korean crisis -- namely, a threat of a U.S. strike on Iran might be matched by threat of a North Korean attack on South Korea. Could this be an indirect way for the People's Republic of China (PRC) to go mano-a-mano with the U.S.?

Connection between the Far and Middle East gains credence from a recent review of relevant Chinese-language literature by a U.S. scholar at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy. Lora Saalman observes: "Chinese discourse tends to link the Iranian nuclear question with North Korea."

North Korea, China's junkyard dog?


As in the past, the PRC is allied with North Korea which has 24.5 million people and an economy smaller than that of Nepal, but larger than Cote d'Ivoire. According to the Financial Times:
China is estimated to account for nearly 90 per cent of North Korea’s overall exports and imports, but North Korea accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of China’s exports and imports.
Relevant PRC players sometimes regard North Korea as analogous to a backward part of China. And, as is frequently the case, the master-servant nexus generates resentment. Thus,"Pyongyang detests Beijing’s high-handed treatment of the North akin to that of a poor Chinese province," as said by area expert Victor Cha in April 2011 testimony to a U.S. Congressional Commission.

Even in China, little is known about the PRC-North Korea relationship and even less about the military ties between their armies. Thus, there is the logical possibility that North Korea might really be, in some respects, a PRC proxy. If so, Beijing's sway need not be uniform across all subject matter. For instance, the PRC might choose to exercise decisive influence with respect to nuclear weapons but not with regard to concentration camps.

The stark truth is that Beijing has the practical ability to force the North Koreans -- leader, party, government, army -- to comply with PRC wishes via promise or performance of any number of countermeasures, were that even necessary.

PRC government privy to PLA secrets?

What about the hypothesis that North Korea's nuclear weapons and missiles might somehow really be controlled by China's People's Liberation Army (PLA)?  If so, only a handful of people in China and North Korea would need to know about it.

The PLA is not subordinate, but rather coordinate to the PRC Government. The PLA reports only to the Communist Party of China. Thus, much goes on inside the PLA that is unknown to the PRC Government, and certainly unknown to the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs which dares not tangle with the PLA. China's policy with regard to North Korea is made by the Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee together with the PLA, whose special interest in North Korea is acknowledged and respected.

PRC dissimulation?

Why should we believe that the PLA is really unhappy with North Korea's behavior? Recently Lignet reported that additional PLA units had moved to the border with North Korea. If so, those reinforcements are perhaps more likely a warning to the U.S. than to North Korea. The same is true of some recent ambiguous statements by the PRC's new President Xi Jinping, which some Western media rushed to interpret as a rebuke to North Korea. However, within the PRC some of those same statements were seen as aimed at the U.S.

Cutting U.S. down to size!

Though the PRC has become starkly pragmatic and the U.S. more ideological, the two countries are nonetheless still playing "the great game" of the world powers. In this context, cutting the U.S. down to size is one of the fundamental goals of both PRC and Russian foreign policy.

Without reference to ideology, North Korea remains an important strategic asset for the PRC. For example, North Korea is a buffer between the PRC and South Korea, which is a U.S. ally.

It is also possible that the PRC sees North Korea's nuclear-weapons and missile programs as a way to challenge the U.S. presence in Northeast Asia. The point is to demonstrate to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan that the U.S. is no longer able to guarantee their security.

And those like the U.S., who now once again turn to Beijing in the hope of moderating North Korea's bizarre words and conduct are actually bending to a strategy that seeks to have China's neighbors recognize that they are now in a PRC sphere of influence.

PRC, a nuclear proliferator?

North Korea is an adjacent state, where the PLA might one day wish to deploy without local authorization. Therefore, theorists of nuclear proliferation would find it difficult to understand why the PRC would have wanted to help North Korea advance nuclear weapons and long-range missiles there.

Pakistan is also contiguous to the PRC which probably gave Pakistan some nuclear-weapons technologies that were in turn passed on to North Korea. From a PRC strategic perspective, can the case of North Korea be distinguished from that of Pakistan?

The PRC-Pakistan border runs along some of the world's highest mountains. In 1896, eye-witness traveller Lord Curzon wrote about "the amazing military strength of the frontier."  Even without nuclear weapons, Pakistan was likely always able to stop an army coming from China.

By contrast, the PRC-North Korea border is militarily penetrable. Without nuclear weapons, North Korea was probably unable to prevent the PLA from deploying across the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. Thus, it is hard to imagine that the PLA would ever permit the North Korean army to get and keep nuclear-armed missiles capable of being aimed and fired independently of the PLA.

PLA ties to North Korea a "black hole"  

Since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the PRC has probably always been in a unique position to curb North Korea. If so, why did Beijing further (or, at the very least, acquiesce with respect to) North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles?

The answer might be in details of the relationship between the North Korean military and the PLA. For sure, this is a secret about which almost nothing is known. However, it is commonly said that the PLA has close ties to its North Korean counterpart and that the PLA has projects and activities in North Korea.

"All warfare is based on deception" says Sunzi in The Art of War, an ancient text still revered by PLA strategists. In the same spirit is the well-known Chinese adage, "use a borrowed knife to strike your enemy." Thus, it is readily understandable why perhaps there are some PLA fingerprints on key aspects of North Korea's nuclear-weapons and missile programs.

Checkmate!

North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the PRC seem to have left fingerprints on various aspects of Iran's nuclear-weapons and missile programs. And, Iran and North Korea now appear to be collaborating with an eye to "playing" the U.S.

The likely goal is to challenge the U.S. with simultaneous crises in both the Far and Middle East. If so, this result would probably be welcome to both the PRC and Russia as part of their continuing effort to counter U.S. global influence. And this is precisely why both the PRC and Russia have probably to some extent furthered Iran's race to nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

U.S. "missed the boat" on Iran?

So far, the U.S. is playing its hand without much intelligence or skill. And in this regard, we should turn to Henry Kissinger's March 2013 comments at the Council on Foreign Relations. There, Kissinger implied that governments around the world neither trust President Obama nor know where he is heading internationally.

From day one, the U.S. leader wasted much of his first term pointing a finger at Israel and peculiarly "reaching out to the Muslim World," including the Islamic Republic of Iran. Instead, U.S. interests might probably have been better served had he early on used force to stop Iran's race to nuclear weapons. Now, new developments hint at linkage between the Far and Middle East. This may signal that the cost of taking on Iran may now have become too high.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

犹太民族的原住民权利

关于调和古老的犹太民族与后起的巴勒斯坦民族之道义与法律权利的探讨


作者:艾伦赫兹
译者:张少军


艾伦赫兹,曾任加拿大枢密院(服务于加拿大首相和联邦内阁)高级顾问,此前供职于加拿大外交部.更早些时候,他在纽约、蒙特利尔、多伦多、香港等地的多间大学教授历史与法律.他曾在麦克吉尔大学(McGill University)学习欧洲历史与语言,获学士学位 (B. A.);尔后在哥伦比亚大学(Columbia University)学习东欧与奥特曼帝国历史,获文学硕士、哲学博士 (M. A., Ph.D.) 学位;他还获得剑桥大学(Cambridge University)法学学士学位 (LL.B.); 多伦多大学(University of Toronto)法学硕士学位 (LL.M.). 本文的最初文本曾发表于下列媒体:《美国思想者》(American Thinker);《以色列智库评论》(Israel Resource Review);《温尼伯犹太评论》(Winnipeg Jewish Review);《耶路撒冷邮报》(Jerusalem Post).

[English- and French-language versions of this article are on this www.allenzhertz.com website. See two separate postings, respectively October 2011 entitled "Jewish Aboriginal Rights to Israel" and March 2012 entitled "Sur les droits autochtones du peuple juif." The English-language version is the original text.]


导语



“犹太人民已经在其历史家园上缔造了一个成功的国家。”20110921日,美国总统奥巴马在联合国大会如是说。尽管许多世纪以来,“民族”和“历史家园”的主题一直引起全世界犹太人共鸣;然而总统的表态尤其值得欢迎,因为在我们的时代,关于犹太民族在其世世代代居住的土地的一部分上实现民族自决的权利正在引起日益激烈的争论。



这些激烈的辩论不可避免地聚焦于民族自决的政治和法律学原理,以及与之相关的原住民权利的原理,因为犹太民族在中东阿拉伯人中属土原住民少数民族,而中东阿拉伯人现在又正成为包括土耳其,伊朗,巴基斯坦和印尼等重要国家在内的更大的穆斯林世界——伊期兰合作组织拥有五十七个成员国——的一个重要的组成部分。



谈及犹太民族的原住民权利,必然让人想起具有重大的道义、政治和法律影响的犹太人的生存环境——周期性的迫害,永远是歧视的牺牲品等等。尽管如此大约二十五个世纪以来,犹太人始终与作为他们原住地的历史家园保持着文化上和人口统计学上的联系。鉴于作为国际法中最高源头与根据的原住民的特殊历史权利已得到一些相关条约的明确认可,上述事实难道不能为犹太民族争取自己的原住民权利增加道义、政治和法律的分量?正是出于类似情感,以色列内阁声明(2012.12.2):“犹太民族对他的历史家园拥有天赋的、历史的与法律的权利。”



原住民权利的概念已经被其他民族很好地理解。譬如十九世纪为从奥斯曼帝国独立而战的希腊民族;譬如正在讨论他们的原住民权利和相关条约权利的加拿大的印第安部落。他们敏锐地察觉这样一条规律——与正在讨论的权利类似,提供有意义的证据是极为重要的。并且,类似法律讨论正是少数民族讲述自己历史故事的机会,而这些引人注目的讲述将唤醒其他更强大民族的良知。



巴勒斯坦人是一个“民族”而犹太人不是?




否认犹太人的权利或使之最小化,是正在进行的针对犹太民族和以色列的“战争”的一个重要组成部分。例如,巴勒斯坦领导人穆罕默德·阿巴斯和伊朗总统穆罕默德·艾哈迈迪内贾德就在现代政治、法律强调原住民权利和民族自决权利的基本原理的背景下否认犹太人是一个民族。这种否认令人困惑,因为最初的欧洲民族的形成很可能正得益于历史上关于何为民族的理解,这一理解又主要得益于圣经中犹太民族为民族定义的范例。上述解释与大量考古学发现相一致并为许多其他历史事实所证明:犹太民族,如同希腊民族、中国汉民族一样,同属世界最古老的民族——目前已进行四分之一世纪的基因组研究已提供了全新的证据,证明今天大部分犹太人明显遗传自远古时代的犹太人。



何谓民族?




语言学家们关于“原始闪米特语”的理论或许表明了上古闪族(它远远早于希伯来人的形成及尔后阿拉伯人的形成)族群间的血缘关系。然而,“民族性”的内涵比遗传学的内涵丰富得多。它是一个复杂的社会学现象——尽管它只是一个抽象的概念,却是世界历史发展的第一推动力。



选择作为一个独特民族的始终如一的自我识别系统,给自己一个独特的命名(例如 יהודים‎ = Yehudim = 犹太人),共享一定变量范围内相对独特的文明特征——例如共同的祖先、历史、祖国、领土,语言,文学,宗教,文化,经济及社会制度。在民族的主观身分认同之外,一个民族吸引它的朋友和敌人眼球的客观外在的身分同一性,也常常为民族的存在及其特征提供弥足珍贵的历史证据。



这种历史证据的参考是必不可少的,因为按照政治和法律的原理,原住民权和民族自决权不能追溯既往。这意味一个民族,如果没有一个与相应的历史时期为背景的持续的身分认同,则不能以该民族今天的名义向更早的历史时期要求自身的原住民权或民族自决权——其时它尚未完成自身的种族进化以及作为一个特定民族的自我身分认同。



可以肯定,人类族群有时会用充满政治意味的新的身分认同来重塑形象,因而新的民族会不断出现;与此同时老的民族也可能分裂或消失——在大多数情形中,这些消失民族的基因和文化的特征会部分地在一个或多个其他民族中存在下去。

何谓“原住民”民族?


在目前居住于一个国家或地区的若干独特的有自己统一的身分认同的民族之中,那最早在此居住的民族才能最有力地要求自己的原住民权利——那些在本土完成自身种族进化的民族尤其如此。不论人口多寡,这个原住民民族明显区别于目前其他后起的当地民族——包括在当地形成的民族与通过征服、移民在那里定居的民族。例如,加拿大印第安部落通常被称为“第一民族”。他们始终是原住民民族,即使这些部落现在只有区区几百人。他们“时间上最早”的地位并不因其人口只占加拿大总人口的极小部分而失去。
在过去两千年里,犹太民族在他们的祖先的故土上拥有同样的最有力地要求原住民权力的地位——尽管在那些世纪里的多数时候,他们只占当地居民一个很小的百分比。犹太民族持久稳固的原住民权利并不因为在不同的历史时期里大多数犹太人生活在别的地方而被削弱。

原住民国土的名称与范围


一般来说,在当地,大多数穆斯林和阿拉伯人顽固地拒绝承认“以色列”作为犹太人正式国家的永久性与合法性。换言之,拒绝接受犹太人民在其原本更大的祖居之地的部分国土上,通过实际的政治手段行使民族自决的权利。这祖居之地,从地中海一直延伸到约旦河以东的土地。例如,“圣经”告诉我们,十二个部族的分布横跨约旦河。上古以色列国王大卫、所罗门和他们的继任者所管辖的王国版图也向东横跨约旦河——这版图稍后又成为罗马帝国的“朱迪亚”的版图。自上古以来,这个家园便被称为“以色列的土地”(希伯来语,ארץ ישראל)。

我们知道,基督教汲取了犹太教的许多元素,而伊斯兰教更是从基督教、犹太教这两个更古老的一神论宗教中汲取灵感。因为这个原因,后来基督徒和穆斯林所理解的“圣地”((拉丁语,terra sancta奥斯曼土耳其语,arz-i mukaddes)在地理学上与早期犹太人的“以色列的土地”属同一概念。

“巴勒斯坦”的历史涵义是什么?


对基督徒(包括那些操阿拉伯语的)而言,“圣地”又叫“巴勒斯坦”。这地名在许多世纪里只不过是个历史称谓。换言之,只是对公元七世纪早期的多情记忆。那时的巴勒斯坦还是罗马-拜占庭帝国的一个省,基督教是那里的官方宗教。正因为如此,对“圣地”的一次访问促使马克·吐温写下这样的评论:“巴勒斯坦不属于庸常的世界。对于诗和传统而言,它是神圣的,它是梦的国土。”

许多世纪以来,这个并未实际存在的“巴勒斯坦”出现在欧洲人和美洲人的地图上,总是包括约旦河以东的土地。从公元四世纪到1946年,作为地理学概念的“巴勒斯坦”总是包括现在约旦哈希姆王国的部分或全部领土。因此,1911年版的大不列颠百科全书正确地表述:按照当代地理学的理解,“西巴勒斯坦”与“东巴勒斯坦”被约旦河隔开;而后者一直伸展到阿拉伯沙漠的边缘。

    总有犹太人居住在“圣地”吗?


尽管古代的人口统计在很多时候只是一个猜谜游戏,但在罗马帝国早期,犹太人可能已达数百万之众。公元70年第二圣殿被毁的一个多世纪前,大多数犹太人宁愿生活在地中海周围或更远的地方,而不愿意在他们的祖居之地。尽管如此,可能到公元六世纪时,犹太人依然占“圣地”居民的多数。虽然一些犹太人总是喜欢坚守故园,而其他犹太人却不停地搬回或迁出——保持一种延续至今的流浪的生活模式。

犹太圣经、基督教福音书、穆斯林古兰经都曾指证犹太人及其与“圣地”的联系。自远古以来,从未有过犹太人在圣地“缺席”的时候。即使当犹太人人口数量下降到最低点,圣地仍然是享誉整个犹太世界的犹太教教士——“拉比”们的家园。在大约2600年的连续的历史中,犹太人民始终保持了其民族身份主客观认同的同一性,包括与其天赋家园的人口统计学和文化联系。

在基督纪元的最初的四个世纪里,居住在圣地的犹太人在犹太文明中扮演了重要角色,包括完成耶路撒冷《犹太法典》。从开罗犹太教堂(Geniza)发现的文献透露从公元七世纪初穆斯林征服到1099年十字军东征胜利这一时期内犹太人在圣地生活的许多信息。十字军东征时期,阿卡(Acre)是犹太人的一个重要中心,我们从不同的信息来源认识了它——其中包括十二世纪犹太旅行家西班牙图德拉市的本杰明(Benjamin)和德国雷根斯堡的犹太教教士帕特克亚(Petachia)的记载。

在马穆鲁克(Mamluk)时期(12501516),耶路撒冷,是以埃及为基地,管辖苏丹国土上所有的犹太社区的领导人(nagid)的权力中心。在十五世纪犹太教教士俄巴底亚·本·亚伯拉罕·贝尔蒂诺罗的信函以及像阿诺德·范·哈米、费利克斯•法布里、马丁·克伯尼克一类基督教朝圣者的旅行见闻录中,对十五世纪在圣地的犹太人也有生动的记载。

更丰富资料则来自结束于1917年的奥斯曼帝国四个世纪的统治。例如,十六世纪的奥斯曼官方档案中记录的犹太纳税人的名字。证据也来自某些文件,如十八世纪晚期耶路撒冷犹太社区的会计账簿。十九世纪,各种游记、执政报告和大量其他信息一起,为我们讲述了当地犹太人的故事。尽管犹太人绝对数量一直在增长,但依然只占当地总人口(包括穆斯林和基督徒在内)的一小部分。他们占人口总数的比率仍然低得惊人——事实上,远低于罗马帝国早期。

希腊人民的原住民权利                                                                                   

正如犹太民族是其祖居之地的原住民一样,希腊民族是希腊的原住民。十九世纪初,一些知名人士,如英国诗人拜伦勋爵热烈拥护希腊民族的原住民权利。部分地由于这个原因,一些欧洲强国出面干预,以帮助希腊人从奥斯曼帝国赢得独立。1821年,当希腊人开始了他们的反抗苏丹的起义时,他们只是现代希腊的版图上总人口中的一个少数民族;而且第一次世界大战(1914-1918)之后,英国首相大卫·劳尔德·乔治对安那托利亚沿岸的希腊人民原住民权利的支持也未获成功。在那里,大的希腊人社区从远古一直延续到1922年——那时希腊人社区最终被并非安那托利亚原住民的土耳其人所摧毁。从某种意义上说,十九世纪与二十世纪希腊的历史,便是数十万散居各地的希腊人逐渐回到他们祖居之地的历史。

“第一民族”的原住民权利


从理论上讲,正如现代犹太民族是其祖居之地的原住民一样,“第一民族”或印第安部族是他们在美洲的祖居之地的原住民。现代犹太民族要求其祖居之地的原住民权利和条约权利。加拿大的原住民包括“第一民族”也在争取同样的权利。第一民族坚信,他们部落的至高无上的土地权可以追溯到最初的时间。换言之,早在加拿大人,欧洲人和国际法诞生之前。同理,犹太民族对其祖居之地的原住民权利亦可追溯到远古;因而先于后古典时期欧洲文明和伊斯兰文明的诞生。

十九世纪普通法法院开始承认原住民权利。从1982年开始,加拿大原住民权利明确写入加拿大宪法法案。加拿大最高法院裁定,在那些第一民族保持着其人口统计与和文化联系的土地上,原住民权利(包括自治权利)的存在,可以不受因外敌征服而产生的主权变更和一个新的多数民族涌入的影响。在处理各方的权利要求时,法院力图调和新移民的后起权利与第一民族的原住民权利。原住民权利的概念,在澳大利亚、新西兰、美国都是一个重要的法律议题,在国际上它也正在得到更多的关注。

重要的是犹太民族和美洲“第一民族”的原住权利之间的比较的相似点。无论犹太人的祖居之地在约旦河的西边还是东边,犹太民族是这块土地的原住民部族而阿拉伯人(包括十九世纪二十世纪新的阿拉伯移民浪潮)则是外来的殖民者。无论是一千多年前还是今天返回圣地与那里的同胞汇合的犹太人与十七世纪那些在美洲建立了英国殖民地的清教徒前辈截然不同——殖民者在美洲既无祖先亦无亲戚。

犹太民族的原住民权利


如同希腊民族或“第一民族”一样,两千多年来,犹太民族一直不断在加强与其祖居之地的历史性联系。因而,近二十六个世纪以来,“以色列国土”一直是犹太教信仰的核心元素。我们应如何处理这种现象?一个选项是参照加拿大最高法院关于原住民的判例,着眼于他们在历史与文明发展中所扮演的角色。从这个角度看,犹太教在更长的历史背景上始终强调“以色列国土”是上帝赐给亚伯拉罕及其后裔的礼物(《创世纪·第十五章》),似乎可以看作这块特殊的土地对于拥有独特文化的独特民族——犹太民族的持续重要性的人类学上的证据。

在所有现存的民族当中,犹太民族拥有主张“圣地”原住民权利的最有力的地位——在那里,大约2600年以前,犹太教信仰、希伯来语、犹太民族就已诞生。在那之前,“圣地”就和其他事物一起,构成了犹太民族直系祖先的家园——他们中包括像大卫王、所罗门王这样一些因犹太人的《圣经》而闻名的人物。在那时以及更早的时候,圣地也是其他民族的家园,像腓尼基人、亚扪人、摩押人、伊多姆人、腓力斯人。然而所有这些民族早就从这个世界消失了,今天没有谁来代表他们提出要求,包括只在最近才根据假想的遗传血统提出的要求,这些要求既无历史证据亦无基因组科学的实证。

那么,怎么看世界历史上的戏剧性角色“阿拉伯人民”?同样地,伟大的阿拉伯人民的原住地是阿拉伯半岛,不是圣地。公元六世纪到公元七世纪,伟大的阿拉伯民族在阿拉伯半岛上形成,伊斯兰教与古阿拉伯语的诞生大约与之同一时代。而希伯来语,犹太教和犹太人民在此前大约一千年便已在圣地确立。

从公元七世纪上半叶穆斯林最初的征服开始,圣地的犹太人遭受了持续性的歧视和周期性期的迫害。然而,无论是阿拉伯人还是后来的入侵者,都未能根除当地的犹太居民,斩断犹太民族与其祖先家园的联系。

今天,犹太民族不再是大海与约旦河之间这片土地上的少数民族。这意味着,犹太人民现在可以从民族自决的重要原理中获得更大的利益——按照这些原理,通常应根据目前当地人口的民族特点分配领土。与此同时,犹太民族将继续巩固其祖先家园的部分土地上的原住民权利。人们将会发现,在大多数穆斯林和阿拉伯人拒绝承认以色列作为犹太国家的合法性和永久性的正在进行的争论中,确认与强调犹太民族在当地的原住民权有一定的政治和法律意义。

犹太国


全世界的大多数犹太人都视以色列为唯一的犹太国家,即视其为在犹太民族更大的祖先家园的部分土地上实现民族自决权利的一种政治表述。与其他国家的人民一样,犹太人民拥有民族自决的权利。虽然伟大的阿拉伯人民经由21个阿拉伯国家来表达他们的民族自决权,伟大的犹太人民却将以色列作为他们民族自决权的唯一表达。

西方的一些思想家现在可能为一个独特的民族拥有一块国土的单一民族国家的概念所困扰。如果是这样,也没有特别的理由仅仅针对以色列,因为许多其他国家也是单一民族国家。例如,日本,意大利,希腊和阿拉伯联盟的成员国都是单一的民族国家。在理论和实践中,单一民族国家的模式没有外国人或少数民族与多数民族在基本的公民权利和人权方面的冲突。此外,单一民族国家也可以为一个或多个少数民族提供集体权利。而且,关于个人和集体权利,以色列的国内法所提供的,完全可以与其他的法律制度相媲美并优于其他中东国家。

以色列出自奥斯曼帝国


直到第一次世界大战结束,“圣地”都是奥斯曼帝国的一部分。因此,以色列和其他二十四个现代国家是奥斯曼帝国疆土的继承国,从公元1516年到1920年的四百年来奥斯曼帝国一直是近东和中东的主导力量。除了当时居统治地位的土耳其人,奥斯曼帝国也是其他民族的家园,包括阿尔巴尼亚人,希腊人,斯拉夫人,科普特人,亚美尼亚人,马龙人、阿拉维斯人、德鲁兹人、库尔德人,阿拉伯人和犹太人。几个世纪以来,犹太人生活在奥斯曼帝国的各个地方,包括君士坦丁堡,斯洛尼卡,开罗,亚历山大,大马士革,阿勒颇,摩苏尔,巴格达,巴士拉,太巴列,希伯伦,萨费德,加沙和耶路撒冷。

191410月,奥斯曼帝国选择加入第一次世界大战,抗击英国及其盟国。因为战神对英国的军队的垂青,英国政府终于面临处置多民族的奥斯曼帝国的疆土的问题——如何做才能既照顾当前英国的利益又遵循十九世纪的自由主义的民族自决原则?在这方面,现代犹太复国运动之父西奥多·赫茨尔在他的1896年著作《犹太国》中已经宣告:犹太人,尽管生活在遍及全球的许多不同的地方,依然构成了一个实现民族自决权利为目的民族。

  何谓“贝尔福宣言”?


191710月,英国内阁决定支持创建“一个犹太人的单一民族家园”的计划。管辖地假定为“巴勒斯坦”,一个当时并不存在的疆域不确定的国家,最后由国际联盟于1922年描述为“巴勒斯坦委任管理区”,它还包括外约旦(东巴基斯坦),在片土地上,已存在一个创立于1921年的哈希姆酋长国。英国政府承诺“尽最大的努力”以创建“一个犹太人的单一民族家园”,出于这样一个愿望,即帮助犹太人民在其祖先的家园行使民族自决权利,以获得居住在革命的俄国与美国的犹太人对协约国战争努力的支持,并帮助保护作为其通往英属印度的咽喉要道的苏伊士运河的东侧。创建“一个犹太人的单一民族家园”的意图,在191711月公诸于世,史称“贝尔福宣言”。

1919年有一个“巴勒斯坦”民族吗?


正当英国致力于击败奥斯曼土耳其人之时,世界也开始知道了伟大的阿拉伯人民提出的要求。这让人想起“阿拉伯的劳伦斯”(一个被派去联络当地各派势力的英国情报军官——译者注)和约旦哈希姆王子费萨尔·伊本·侯赛因的战时功绩,他俩都出席了1919-1920年的巴黎和会。在那里,民族自决权利——包括伟大的阿拉伯人民的要求——受到极大关注。但是在巴黎,没有人知道一个明确的“巴勒斯坦”民族。然后那里就出现了这样一个“巴勒斯坦”民族,它的存在将被费萨尔王子,美国总统伍德罗·威尔逊,法国总理大臣乔治·克列孟梭,英国首相部长大卫·劳埃德·乔治和前来讨论和平条约其他领导人所知晓。

1919年,美国“金——克林委员会”在广泛征集意见、证词、陈情书的基础上,对当时的形势有一个评估。它给威尔逊总统的报告表明,在“圣地”,阿拉伯人——无论是穆斯林或基督徒——都强烈反对创造一个新的叫做“巴勒斯坦”的国家的计划,他们觉得这是令人憎恶的犹太复国主义计划的一部分。

曾经有过一个叫做“巴勒斯坦”的穆斯林国家吗?


1919年和1920年,大多数当地阿拉伯人——穆斯林或基督徒——都支持当时创建一个新的叫做“大叙利亚”的阿拉伯国家的计划。他们希望这个国家将涵盖今天的叙利亚,黎巴嫩,约旦,约旦河西岸,加沙和以色列。对居住在“圣地”的穆斯林而言,地域如此广泛的政治认同是自然的,因为大马士革大省(奥斯曼土耳其语:الشام‎ Sham)在不同的时期里都突出表现了穆斯林和奥斯曼帝国历史的特点。相比之下,奥斯曼帝国从未有过的一个省或副省级单位,叫做“巴勒斯坦”或拥有与“巴勒斯坦”一样辽阔的土地。不管如何设想。穆斯林历史上从未有过一个国家或省被称为“巴勒斯坦”。

公元七世初期的阿拉伯征服后,在伊斯兰领土上大马士革省的一个区(阿拉伯语称jund جند)曾一度保留了罗马和拜占庭老地名Palaestina (阿拉伯语称 Filastin
فلسطين),辖区跨越约旦河,这个只是规模较大的巴勒斯坦的一小部分的地区以前曾是罗马-拜占庭帝国的一个省,这种保存十几个世纪的记忆被基督徒带到了世界各地,最终在1922年付诸实施,要成立“巴勒斯坦授管区”,它拥有全新的辖区——既包括外约旦酋长国(东巴勒斯坦)也包括“犹太人民的民族家园”(西巴勒斯坦)。

遍及全球民族自决实践


巴黎和平会议的任务是协调获胜的协约国和各种力量组合的政治利益与那些有着自我认同的悠久历史和长期遭受惨痛外来压迫的著名民族的自决权利与要求。要考虑的包括中国人、法国人,德国人、波兰人、芬兰人、莱特人、拉脱维亚人、爱沙尼亚人、斯洛伐克人、斯洛文尼人、亚克罗地亚人、塞尔维亚人,意大利人,匈牙利人,罗马尼亚人,保加利亚人,希腊人,土耳其人,库尔德人,亚美尼亚人,阿拉伯人和犹太人,这自然是一个困难而纠结的问题。在这个大背景下,在许多决议中只有一个决议专门为创建“犹太人的民族家园”而设。值得注意的是,“犹太人的民族家园”这一短语在1917年至1922年的一系列联合宣言、决议和条约被反复提及,并在作为奥斯曼帝国的继承者土耳其共和国于1923年订立的《洛桑条约》中得到确认。

为什么要建立“犹太人的民族家园”?


决定在其更大的祖先家园版图的部分领土上实现犹太人的民族自治,这是对1922年提出的在从海边到约旦河的区域内建立一个“犹太人的民族家园”理念的实践。“巴勒斯坦托管区”,其法律地位类似于一个多边协定或条约,国际联盟1922724日将其交给英国托管,并授于它全新的辖区:包括外约旦(东巴勒斯坦)和“犹太人的民族家园”(西巴勒斯坦)。根据19463月条约,外约旦脱离“巴勒斯坦托管区”,成立了后来称为“外约旦哈希姆王国”的独立的阿拉伯人国家,这在19464月国际联盟的最后一次大会得到承认。19485月,“犹太人的民族家园”成为独立的犹太人国家,国名是“以色列国”

巴黎和会的决策者们知道,当时的圣地明显是欠发达与人口不足的地区。他们也明白,新的“犹太人的民族家园”初创时犹太人将不会是当地的多数民族。然而,它的创立有意识地提供了一个选择——不只给住在当地的大约85,000犹太人,也提供给过去,现在和未来所有的犹太人民。在这个背景下,“犹太人的民族家园”,被理解成全球1400万犹太人的共同家园——包括当时住在近东和中东一百万犹太人。

国际上决定建立一个“犹太人的民族家园”并没有更多地纠缠于当地的人口统计数据,但却明确地考虑到“犹太人与巴勒斯坦的历史联系。”这是对犹太人民与祖先家园的长期持续而稳固的历史性联系的明确认可。国际联盟的“巴勒斯坦授托管区”计划也包含了发展“犹太人的民族家园”详细的规定。例如,有明确的条款要求“从海边到约旦河”“为这片土地上的犹太人提供封闭的居留地”。

阿拉伯人应得到中东的所有土地吗?


无法建立一个民族家园的犹太人民将意味着否定伟大的犹太人民参与多民族的奥斯曼帝国辽阔疆域的分割,而在那里——包括在圣地——犹太人已居住了许多个世纪。无法建立一个民族家园的犹太人民也意味着伟大的阿拉伯人民将接受几乎整个奥斯曼帝国的全部遗产。这结果是大卫·劳埃德·乔治、伍德罗·威尔逊和他们的同事们所不能接受的,因为它们清楚地认识到,伟大的犹太人民民族自决的要求与伟大的阿拉伯人民的类似要求一样,是极具说服力的。

巴黎的决策者们坚信他们对伟大的阿拉伯人民的要求作出了公正的回应,他们相信他们已经将阿拉伯人民从土耳其400多年的统治下解放出来,并通过在这片以前臣服于奥斯曼苏丹的土地上创建与承认几个新的阿拉伯国家帮助其走上独立的道路。例如,77%的“巴勒斯坦托管区”的领土属于外约旦,它最终于1946年成为一个独立的阿拉伯国家。

国际上决定“在从海边到约旦河”之间的土地上建立一个“犹太人的民族家园”,并没有导致在当地阿拉伯人流离失所。相反,从1922年到1948年,在犹太人的人口增加了8倍的同时,在“犹太人的民族家园”居住的阿拉伯人口也几乎增加了两倍。然而,在19485月,当地阿拉伯人联合几个相邻的阿拉伯国家发动了一场毁灭新独立的以色列的战争。那时他们宣称其目的便是灭绝生活在从海边到约旦河之间这片土地上的所有犹太人——就像土耳其人于1922年令人惊讶地成功地在安那托利亚沿岸根除了的作为原住民的希腊人的社区那样。因此,中东难民问题主要是19485 月后出现的。特别是,出现的难民中有850,000犹太人。他们从不同的穆斯林或阿拉伯国家或阿拉伯军队占领的“犹太人的民族家园”的部分领土上逃出来。尽管如此,依然有大约600,000阿拉伯人居住在从1948年以后一直在以色列政府控制下的“犹太人的民族家园”的土地上,他们构成了当地阿拉伯人中的绝大多数,虽然不是全部。

1960年以前谁是“巴勒斯坦人”?


从远古以来,犹太民族就一直保持同一个名称与持续的主客观身分的同一性。相比之下,在二十世纪初叶,在圣地居住的大约五十万阿拉伯人与大部分基督徒概念中的“巴勒斯坦”并无多少联系——它在他们的想象中并无清晰的特点,它当时只是一个并不存在的国家。当地穆斯林阿拉伯人也没有被他们的邻居或日益增多的拜访圣地的外国人普遍地看作“巴勒斯坦人”。例如,十九世纪的欧洲或美国的旅行者们有时会谈及“一块没有民族的土地”。这是一个很有见地的评论,因为,与奥斯曼统治时期一样,那时圣地有近十万居民没有清晰的民族特征,只是与其邻近的人口有着民族宗教认同方面的相似性或同一性。

1900年前后,当地的穆斯林阿拉伯人才有了意义重大的民族认同系统。它一般包括家庭与宗族联系、与故乡与邻里相联的爱国主义、对大叙利亚的依恋、对奥斯曼公民身分的认同、归属于一个大穆斯林社会的感觉、因伟大的阿拉伯民族的阿拉伯语言与伊斯兰文明而生的骄傲等等。

基督徒历史性的术语“巴勒斯坦”自然更快地引起了在圣地的说阿拉伯语的基督徒的关注——他们比住在圣地的犹太人更少。因此,说阿拉伯语的基督徒们创办了反犹太复国的报纸《Al-Karmil(1908年创办于海法)与《Filastin》(1911年创办于雅法),正是它们为巴勒斯坦人民族主义的出现奠定了基础。比较之下,当地的穆斯林们那时则普遍把“巴勒斯坦”仅仅看作一个地理上的一个概念。只是在二十世纪下半叶,这个概念才变得有用,成了他们民族认同的颇具吸引力的焦点,而那大概是在历史满足了“巴勒斯坦”民族认同的三个前提条件的十二年之后。这些前提条件是:第一,从1917年到1922年间“巴勒斯坦”这个术语在政治上的新生;第二,1946年,“外约旦”脱离“巴勒斯坦托管区”独立;第三,在1948年,犹太人把他们新生的国家叫做“以色列”。

巴勒斯坦民族形成的第一个前提:“巴勒斯坦”作为术语的新生


一个民族可以把它的名称借给一个国家,就像“英格兰”得名公元五、六世纪居住于那儿的日耳曼部落之一“盎格鲁”。一个新的民族也可能因一个地名而形成。因而,大约在1867年加拿大魁北克省成立一个世纪后,当地的法语居民发现这个名称有利于他们作为“魁北克人”的民族自我认同。带着重要的政治含义,新生的“魁北克民族”只是早期法兰西加拿大居民的一部分,他们在加拿大的其他地方如新布伦兹维克省、安大略省、马尼托尼省以及美国的新英格兰州都是重要的人口。

这个比较有助于解释为何在那个叫做“巴勒斯坦”的新管辖区诞生的一段时期后当地的穆斯林阿拉伯人一直没有自我认同为“巴勒斯坦人”。在第一次世界大战之前,奥斯曼人和阿拉伯人就知道“巴勒斯坦”这个地理名词,他们普遍把它看成历史上基督徒的短语,主要由欧洲人与西方人使用。更重要的是,从法律、行政管理以及政治学的意义上看,从未存在过一个叫做“巴勒斯坦”的国家、省或副省级单位叫做“巴勒斯坦”,许多世纪以来都没有类似的管辖权。

因此,特点明确的巴勒斯坦民族的最终形成的第一个先决条件,便是“巴勒斯坦”这一名称令人惊讶的政治上的重生。这一地理名词的正式新生不会早于191711月的“贝尔福宣言”。这个宣言很快在1922年国际联盟的“巴勒斯坦托管区”计划中得到实践——这个托管区包括外约旦(东巴勒斯坦)和“犹太民族的民族家园”(西巴勒斯坦)。

巴勒斯坦民族形成的第二个前提:外约旦脱离“巴勒斯坦”


如前所述,1946年的一个条约从“巴勒斯坦托管区”的版图上切出全部东巴勒斯坦,成立了一个叫做“外约旦哈希姆王国”的独立的阿拉伯国家。当地的阿拉伯人这时才更乐意密切关注“巴勒斯坦”这一地名,因为它的版图第一次毫不含糊地被认为与“犹太民族的民族家园”完全一致(西巴勒斯坦)。这一更小的“巴勒斯坦托管区”确实存在只有两年:即仅仅存在于外约旦王国成立的1946年与以色列国成立的1948年之间。

1946年以前,长期自我认同为“穆斯林”和“阿拉伯人”,普遍倾向归因于其深刻的文化内涵。相比之下,关心如何保持“巴勒斯坦”作为民族自我认同的名称,对当地穆斯林而言,则相对地缺乏吸引力。从1922年到1946年,大巴勒斯坦的概念不能给当地阿拉伯人反对犹太人的斗争以任何帮助;而位于大海与约旦河之间的,一个更小的,其政治与法律地位那时仍然过于含糊不清的“巴勒斯坦”,却吸引了一个居民群落自称为“巴勒斯坦人”。举例来说,那时并无任何因素阻止阿拉伯人跨越约旦河,移居约旦河两边的任何一个地区;而外约旦在两次战争之间英国人的条约中一直代表“巴勒斯坦”。

一个自由伸展到约旦河以东的“大巴勒斯坦”显然为阿拉伯人和犹太人双方提供了足够的生存空间。1946年之前,当地穆斯林阿拉伯人没有普遍地自我认同为“巴勒斯坦人”,部分地是因为,如果他们这样做,就将向外界传递一种信息:当按照民族自决的原则和平地分配“大巴勒斯坦”的土地还存在逻辑上的可能性时,他们摧毁“犹太人的民族家园”的愿望并不十分强烈。而和平分配“大巴勒斯坦”正是联合王国皮尔考察团长于1937年提议的合乎情理的解决方案。按照这个方案,一个新的“阿拉伯国家”将包括外约旦(东巴勒斯坦)与“犹太人的民族家园”版图上阿拉伯人居住的区域。这个建议,当时犹太人是不情愿地接受了,却遭到当地的和所有的阿拉伯人的明确反对.

巴勒斯坦民族形成的第三个前提:“以色列”的命名


直到1948514日,在华盛顿无人知道新成立的犹太人国家的名称。“以色列”这一称谓必须在最后一刻以手写改正的方式加入杜鲁门总统承认这个新成立的国家政府的宣言的已打印好的文本。许多世纪以来,犹太人只在世俗的意义上使用“巴勒斯坦”这个基督徒的术语;然而,在托管期(19221948),当地犹太人往往超国家地把“巴勒斯坦的”(Palestinian)看作与“犹太的”(Jewish)同义的形容词。例如,《巴勒斯坦邮报》就是著名的为“犹太民族的民族家园”呐喊的报纸;命名为“巴勒斯坦交响乐团”只有犹太音乐家的交响乐团。因此,在“巴勒斯坦”这一名称与许多其他有着托管政权特征的事物一道,跟犹太人犹太复国主义依然有着紧密联系的时期,它自然不会成为当地穆斯林民族自我认同的有吸引力的焦点。也因此,他们不会开始普遍地将地理学上的表述“巴勒斯坦”用于民族自我认同,直到1948年犹太人突然放弃“巴勒斯坦”这一“商标”的十二年之后。

20世纪60年代的巴勒斯坦人民


阿拉伯国家领导人,他们自己在承认存在一个特征鲜明并拥有民族自决权的“巴勒斯坦民族”方面也是犹豫不决的。例如,参加巴​​黎和会主要的阿拉伯领导人费萨尔王子就曾明确接受在巴勒斯坦建设“犹太民族的民族家园”的计划。而建立一个属于特征鲜明的巴勒斯坦民族的主权独立的巴勒斯坦国也不是20世纪上半叶当地最著名阿拉伯领导人的首选方案。耶路撒冷的大穆夫提,哈吉·阿明·阿尔-侯赛因曾经是阿道夫·希特勒的早期粉丝。由于确信轴心国将在第二次世界大战中获胜,这个穆夫提于1941年10月承诺与德国与意大利密切合作,以回报他们对其建立一个联合的法西斯阿拉伯国家计划的支持。这个计划中的国家将覆盖伊拉克、叙利亚和巴勒斯坦(包括约旦河东西两岸)的所有领土。


第二次世界大战后,埃及与约旦政府的行动表明他们对巴勒斯坦人的自决权其实是漠不关心。首先,他们拒绝了1947年联合国成员大会的决议——这个决议建议把大海至约旦河之间的地区切割,成立分别属于犹太人与阿拉伯人的两个新的国家。其次,在1948年到1967年之间 “巴勒斯坦国”并未建立起来,那时埃及拥有加沙地带而约旦则拥有东耶路撒冷和约旦河西岸。

1967年的六日战争中埃及与约旦失去了上述土地,这一事实强烈地刺激了当地的阿拉伯人,使他们倾向视自己为区别于埃及与约旦阿拉伯人的独特的阿拉伯人。现在,更明确地作为阿拉伯民族统一大业的前驱的当地阿拉伯人又有了新的动机自我认同为“巴勒斯坦人”。既然这种附加的自我认同能够有效地表明其最终控制“犹太民族的民族家园”之全部领土的坚定决心,当地阿拉伯人尤其乐意作这种自我认同。尽管“犹太民族的民族家园”的领土已于1922年得到国际公认。我们自然知道,在领土争端和种族宗教仇恨的战火中铸造新的民族身分,这种事情在历史上不乏先例。

权利的和平协调


我的上述分析,既不否认目前存在的一个独特的“巴勒斯坦人民”,也并非暗示这个新生的“巴勒斯坦人民”今天没有权利——包括要求民族自决,独立和领土的权利。确切地说,那里现在存在着来自各方的各种权利诉求。因而最迫切的需求是一个和平的过程,在真诚地尊重双方民族尊严的前提下,实现新形成的巴勒斯坦人民的后起权利与古老的犹太人民的优先权利的协调。

和其他事项相比,一个和平的进程是必不可少的,因为犹太人民的原住民权利,本来就包括“生命权”。也就是说,犹太人有权利安全地生活在他们的天赋家园里。更何况他们只是生活在他们祖先家园的一部分土地上,这部分土地通过从1917年到1923年的一系列宣言、决议、条约得到国际公认。这显然意味着,巴勒斯坦人民无权发动一场“民族解放战争”来反对合法地居住在大海与约旦河之间的犹太人民。正如温斯顿·丘吉尔在1922年所说:犹太人民在那里生活,“是出于权利,而不是出于别人的容忍”。

蓝图——草绘一个有原则的和平


一个民族无权统治另一个民族。因此,和平协调各方权利的过程似乎应尊重所有民族的民族自决权——这也是国际公法的基本原则之一。例如,今天得到各方同意的全面和最终的和平条约,将可能意味着犹太人必须尊重巴勒斯坦人民生活在一个新的巴勒斯坦国的愿望,放弃犹太人民对某些土地——那些目前主要由巴勒斯坦人居住的土地——的大部分原住民权利和条约权利。根据同样的原则,类似条约也似乎应包括确认以色列领土目前主要由犹太人居住的区域。

果真如此,就不存在要以色列将其保有的超出1949年绿线——即停战分界线(ADL)——的部分土地偿还给一个新的巴勒斯坦国的所谓合法要求。首先,1949年与埃及和约旦签订的停战协定明确表明,ADL(停战分界线)不为最终的政治解决预设条件。第二,没有任何阿拉伯政府在任何时候承认ADL作为犹太国的合法永久边界。第三,与埃及(1979年)和约旦(1994年)签订的和平条约表明,以色列的国际边界不是ADL,确切地说是从埃及的西奈半岛老边界西至约旦河东。第四,犹太人民的原住民,条约和自决权利是如此基本,以至他们的分量将压倒关于ADL当前法律地位的种种可能的说辞。

一个全面的和最终的和平条约也可能将犹太民族的原住民权利和条约权利包含在一个或多个特殊的章节里,以确保犹太人​​自由安全地使用某些宗教地点的权利——那些两千多来年一直被犹太教视为神圣的地点。这可能涉及耶路撒冷和约旦河西部的一个或多个地方。

最后,犹太原住民权利、条约权利与民族自决权利加在一起,都要求有至关重要的安全措施,以确保一个新的巴勒斯坦国不会变成最终毁灭以色列的跳板。因为在穆斯林和阿拉伯人占优势的中东,犹太民族仍然是一个脆弱的易受攻击的少数民族,一个全面的和最终的和平条约可能需要有许多确保犹太人安全的有效的约定。而这些的安全措施既应有重要的军事防务措施,也应包括一个毫不含糊地承认以色列作为犹太国家的永久合法性的条款。 也就是承认,以色列作为犹太国家,正是犹太人民在其祖先的家园的部分领土上实现其民族自决权利的一种政治表述。